05 Oct Common process improvement mistake #5: No action taken
Some people tend to turn away from work when responsibility enters the room where something needs to happen. They want to talk about work, about what’s being done and what’s not being done, and they want to layer in perfunctory lines about the challenges likely to be hit if changes are/aren’t made so they are not excluded from the conversation. But they don’t want to do the actual work when hard enters the equation alongside responsibility.
That is for someone else. For something else. For some other time. You’ve experienced this scenario before (we know you have), and maybe even ducked out yourself when the starting line came into view. Deflection tactics in any number of directions are a large reason why for every started process improvement project there are fifteen failed versions of the same project in the archives.
If you really want processes to improve you need to eliminate the roadblocks put in the way. Roadblocks like believing more bureacracy is going to get you to the promised land…this time. Or spinning responsibility like an Inception totem: is it real or is it a dream? Or thinking a list of ideas and recommendations will take on fantasia qualities and render complete by Mickey Magic.
And, yes, the roadblock of allowing deflections to take root before you even enter the room where the work needs to happen. Once non-action is an acceptable response at an individual level, there is little to stop it from becoming the collective response within an organization’s culture.
Process Practice Suggestion
➤ ACKNOWLEDGE
… the process for improvement and all the language and interpretations around it is the first problem you need to solve before it becomes the first solution to fail.
SO YOU CAN: Gain alignment around verifiable outcomes rather than generic outputs to generate a solid foundation people can and will buy into – “Do we understand what the process improvement is, and do we agree on the purpose for doing it?
➤ RESIST
… floating ‘process improvement’ as a performance goal or promotion string or technology win within a larger strategic cost/time framework in order to get work done. These approaches force activity towards personal or team achievements that may well be misaligned with needed organizational outcomes.
SO YOU CAN: Define outcomes with quality metrics rather than just quantifiable ones so transition-focused efforts are valued more than just the numbers – “If process improvement is evaluated on a scale, what happens if the result is not a 5 or outstanding? Who sets the scale?
➤ PIVOT
… to getting people past the fear of losing control over what’s happening or fear of missing out on accolades when successful or being blamed if it fails so you can remove bureacracy and tech hype from the improvement equation.
SO YOU CAN: Keep focus on improving the actions working within the process rather than controlling the people executing the actions – “Do we still agree on what needs to be improved? Are adjustments needed?
Transitioning from an idea to a recommendation to actions is where neglect flourishes and accountability flinches.
There may be politics at play (well, there are always politics at play) that keep process improvements languishing for attention and action. Different teams may own different pieces of the improvement and prioritization becomes the rusty hinge. Decreasing interest once the next squirrel grabs away attention and promises better and bigger if you just…wait.
Committing to an idea and putting words around it to sound responsive but then not committing to the reality of needing sustainable actions and supports to truly improve is non-responsive. It’s also non-action at its visual finest.